Besides, watch the video. They mention I think 5 other example, without the Madrid fire included. Goes to show no one actually watched the video.

Qdeathstar

Nov 30 2005, 02:18 PM

what building over 80 stories caught fire, with jet fuel being a major propellant?

BESIDES THAT, Im gonna keep saying it until someone on the other side of this debate gives us an answer

YOU DONT NEED TO REACH THE MELTING POINT OF STEAL OF STEAL TO BECOME STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND. ALL THE DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT GOT UP TO THE MELTING POINT OF STEEL IS STUPID< ALL IT HAD TO DO WAS GET up to where there was enough heat to allow the steel to flex more than it should.

GTA_PlAyA_728

Nov 30 2005, 10:49 PM

QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Nov 30 2005, 07:23 AM) [snapback]1012434[/snapback]

I said similiar, not exact copy of the building.

Besides, watch the video. They mention I think 5 other example, without the Madrid fire included. Goes to show no one actually watched the video.

I watched the video and most of the stuff they said was all crap. When they talked about the plane that hit the grass in PA i have to admit i dont have any idea how i can go against that, but everything about the twin towers i can say is BS.

Lets see.. where should i start, their was so much useless crap in that movie i cant remember it all..

1.) They showed frames of the airplane hitting the 2nd tower. They said their was a flash before it hit the tower. It was to blurry to make anythin of it. But i did notice that 1/4 of the airplane was inside the building when their was a flash.

2.) They said that people reported hereing explosions in the building after the planes hit. Its a 110 story skyscraper.. every floor is connected to each other physically, electronically (wires going up and down the whole building) and elevators going up and down the whole building. Their could have been hundreds if not thousands of reasons why their was extra explosions. The witnesses said they HEARD an explosion, not actually see one.

3.) When the towers calapsed, the idiot that was narrating the video said their were explosions in the floors beneath the floors that were calapsing BEFORE it hit the floor that exploded. THAT WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION THAT WAS DUST BEING BLOWN OUT OF THE FRIGGIN WINDOWS FROM THE PRESSURE IN THE BUILDING. I guess its pretty easy to mistake it for an explosion if u have a mind of a mentally handicapped person.

4.) The guy was saying how people are stupid for thinking the buildings calapsed because of a fire. A fire.. Then he goes on talking about other buildings haveing fires. Did those other buildings get hit by an airplane? I dont think so..

They think the calapse was all planned out. That it looked like a planned out demolition.. NO.. Let me ask u guys this question.. How much does a Commercial airline plane weigh? hmm? They said each engine is 3 tons each alone. Can that kind of airplane be inside the WTC and still have enough support to be standing? Especially when it has a huge hole inside it. The huge hole lowers the chance of the the building standing, and the airplane adds a shit of a lot more weight.

And of course it looked like a planned out demolition.. Both buildings are just complete rectangles. If its pointed straight up like that its going to come down that way to. The floord pancaked onto each other. Now if it was the sears tower that calapsed, that would be a different story, the top of the sears tower would probably tip over and fall over because as the building goes higher it looses ground area.

They said they saw an explosion on the other side of where the second tower was hit and i guess they thought that was weird Ya ok.. The plane is going 500 MPH.. I was suprised that the plane didnt hit the tower and came out shootin through the opposite side completely.

Lord Steve0

Dec 1 2005, 09:03 PM

Some of the video claims it was a planned demolition. Can i just say that even if it was, and you set the bombs in the perfect places ot take the towers down, the second the planes hit it doesn't mater where the hell the bombs were! The blast fromthe planes will mess up the structure, meaning your planned demolition won't work any more, the plane exploding has altered how the building will fall.

If you wanted to take the towers down then bombs at ground level, or in the car park would do the job perfectly (see the failed attempt in 1992/3? by Al Quaeda). You don't need the planes. I fail to see why anyone would use planes if you have an easier means availible to you.

Qdeathstar

Dec 1 2005, 10:23 PM

You dont need to get the melting point of steal for steal to become structurally unsound.

Mattay

Dec 1 2005, 10:34 PM

QUOTE(OPX)

Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.Status:False.

You do know, that everything that the Government says to its people about these things, like these conspiracies, is utter bullshit.

I don't believe one thing the Government told me about 9/11. I do believe that the U.S. Government had something to do with it. Either they set it up (I highly doubt), or they let it happened. I don't hate the Government or anything, but I just wish they would tell us the real truth once in a while.

Lord Steve0

Dec 2 2005, 08:32 PM

I could maybe believe the government let it happen, but i doubt they'd set it up.They could have known about it and let it all happen, and then know they could use it as an excuse to get a few wars going.

Un-Amurikan Bastage

Dec 3 2005, 12:37 AM

I don't know what to think. I can't see the U.S. government coming together and planning this whole thing just to find an excuse for a war or two. But I think these conspiracy theorists are just too eager to blame some discrepancies on the government.

Besides, watch the video. They mention I think 5 other example, without the Madrid fire included. Goes to show no one actually watched the video.

I watched the video and most of the stuff they said was all crap. When they talked about the plane that hit the grass in PA i have to admit i dont have any idea how i can go against that, but everything about the twin towers i can say is BS.

Lets see.. where should i start, their was so much useless crap in that movie i cant remember it all..

1.) They showed frames of the airplane hitting the 2nd tower. They said their was a flash before it hit the tower. It was to blurry to make anythin of it. But i did notice that 1/4 of the airplane was inside the building when their was a flash.

2.) They said that people reported hereing explosions in the building after the planes hit. Its a 110 story skyscraper.. every floor is connected to each other physically, electronically (wires going up and down the whole building) and elevators going up and down the whole building. Their could have been hundreds if not thousands of reasons why their was extra explosions. The witnesses said they HEARD an explosion, not actually see one.

3.) When the towers calapsed, the idiot that was narrating the video said their were explosions in the floors beneath the floors that were calapsing BEFORE it hit the floor that exploded. THAT WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION THAT WAS DUST BEING BLOWN OUT OF THE FRIGGIN WINDOWS FROM THE PRESSURE IN THE BUILDING. I guess its pretty easy to mistake it for an explosion if u have a mind of a mentally handicapped person.

4.) The guy was saying how people are stupid for thinking the buildings calapsed because of a fire. A fire.. Then he goes on talking about other buildings haveing fires. Did those other buildings get hit by an airplane? I dont think so..

They think the calapse was all planned out. That it looked like a planned out demolition.. NO.. Let me ask u guys this question.. How much does a Commercial airline plane weigh? hmm? They said each engine is 3 tons each alone. Can that kind of airplane be inside the WTC and still have enough support to be standing? Especially when it has a huge hole inside it. The huge hole lowers the chance of the the building standing, and the airplane adds a shit of a lot more weight.

And of course it looked like a planned out demolition.. Both buildings are just complete rectangles. If its pointed straight up like that its going to come down that way to. The floord pancaked onto each other. Now if it was the sears tower that calapsed, that would be a different story, the top of the sears tower would probably tip over and fall over because as the building goes higher it looses ground area.

They said they saw an explosion on the other side of where the second tower was hit and i guess they thought that was weird Ya ok.. The plane is going 500 MPH.. I was suprised that the plane didnt hit the tower and came out shootin through the opposite side completely.

(I'm not defending the consipracists, I'm correcting you)

1) The plane wasn't inside of the building when that explosion happened, that was quite clear...

2) Your answer to the numerous explosions didn't explain how there were numerous explosions. It just explained how they heard them. Even that explanation is faulty, because the firemen outside of the building heard them too.

3) Nothing wrong here...

4) How does the weight of the airplane have anything to do with the manner in which it collapsed? It doesn't matter how perfectly square they were, the probability that they collapsed perfectly downward (as though all the main supports in the base were blown away) is low. Being that tall, and perfectly square, they should've fallen over, especially since there was only a huge hole in one side of the building, increasing the chance that it would've fallen over. If you were to take a tall structure, and punch a hole in one side of it, you would figure it would collapse in the direction the hole is.

Anyway, the only things I find as relative evidence is the seizmographs and the damage to the lobby of the north tower, the Osama video, the video tapes of the Pentagon, the passport, and the government agents being instructed not to fly that day.

I want to know how they figured the steel had to have reached the melting point for the buildings to have collapsed, how they figure they could only have collapsed with the use of bombs (wasn't a jetliner a very large bomb?), how they figure there must've been bombs if the tower stricken on the corner collapsed first (which would collapse first: the one with a hole knocked in the side, or the one with it's corner structure blown out? Isn't the corner a major strong-point in a building? [cornerstone, anyone?]), how they figure the flash in front of the planes wasn't a big glare from the shining front of the airplane (glimmers off the windows), how they didn't think of the air pressure while the building was collapsing rather than explosions, how they figure the numerous explosions had to have been bombs rather than the fuel exploding other things inside of the building (elevators falling, gas manes blowing, etc.), and how they figure that the molten steel in the basements couldn't have been from the intense heat smoldering in the rubble...

I believe that the government knew about it and allowed it (government officials not flying that day, the camera on top of the tower, the allowing of the planes to go off course for 40 minutes before action was taken, etc.)...I don't think they had the capability to perform it. @CaldMagi, you can't say that a bunch of Arabs in a cave had more capability of performing the operation than the U.S. government, because it had nothing to do with bombs (as the evidence points). The U.S. government could pull off what happened, not what you are theorizing happened...

I don't know what to think. I can't see the U.S. government coming together and planning this whole thing just to find an excuse for a war or two. But I think these conspiracy theorists are just too eager to blame some discrepancies on the government.

Besides, watch the video. They mention I think 5 other example, without the Madrid fire included. Goes to show no one actually watched the video.

I watched the video and most of the stuff they said was all crap. When they talked about the plane that hit the grass in PA i have to admit i dont have any idea how i can go against that, but everything about the twin towers i can say is BS.

Lets see.. where should i start, their was so much useless crap in that movie i cant remember it all..

1.) They showed frames of the airplane hitting the 2nd tower. They said their was a flash before it hit the tower. It was to blurry to make anythin of it. But i did notice that 1/4 of the airplane was inside the building when their was a flash.

2.) They said that people reported hereing explosions in the building after the planes hit. Its a 110 story skyscraper.. every floor is connected to each other physically, electronically (wires going up and down the whole building) and elevators going up and down the whole building. Their could have been hundreds if not thousands of reasons why their was extra explosions. The witnesses said they HEARD an explosion, not actually see one.

3.) When the towers calapsed, the idiot that was narrating the video said their were explosions in the floors beneath the floors that were calapsing BEFORE it hit the floor that exploded. THAT WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION THAT WAS DUST BEING BLOWN OUT OF THE FRIGGIN WINDOWS FROM THE PRESSURE IN THE BUILDING. I guess its pretty easy to mistake it for an explosion if u have a mind of a mentally handicapped person.

4.) The guy was saying how people are stupid for thinking the buildings calapsed because of a fire. A fire.. Then he goes on talking about other buildings haveing fires. Did those other buildings get hit by an airplane? I dont think so..

They think the calapse was all planned out. That it looked like a planned out demolition.. NO.. Let me ask u guys this question.. How much does a Commercial airline plane weigh? hmm? They said each engine is 3 tons each alone. Can that kind of airplane be inside the WTC and still have enough support to be standing? Especially when it has a huge hole inside it. The huge hole lowers the chance of the the building standing, and the airplane adds a shit of a lot more weight.

And of course it looked like a planned out demolition.. Both buildings are just complete rectangles. If its pointed straight up like that its going to come down that way to. The floord pancaked onto each other. Now if it was the sears tower that calapsed, that would be a different story, the top of the sears tower would probably tip over and fall over because as the building goes higher it looses ground area.

They said they saw an explosion on the other side of where the second tower was hit and i guess they thought that was weird Ya ok.. The plane is going 500 MPH.. I was suprised that the plane didnt hit the tower and came out shootin through the opposite side completely.

(I'm not defending the consipracists, I'm correcting you)

1) The plane wasn't inside of the building when that explosion happened, that was quite clear...

2) Your answer to the numerous explosions didn't explain how there were numerous explosions. It just explained how they heard them. Even that explanation is faulty, because the firemen outside of the building heard them too.

3) Nothing wrong here...

4) How does the weight of the airplane have anything to do with the manner in which it collapsed? It doesn't matter how perfectly square they were, the probability that they collapsed perfectly downward (as though all the main supports in the base were blown away) is low. Being that tall, and perfectly square, they should've fallen over, especially since there was only a huge hole in one side of the building, increasing the chance that it would've fallen over. If you were to take a tall structure, and punch a hole in one side of it, you would figure it would collapse in the direction the hole is.

Anyway, the only things I find as relative evidence is the seizmographs and the damage to the lobby of the north tower, the Osama video, the video tapes of the Pentagon, the passport, and the government agents being instructed not to fly that day.

I want to know how they figured the steel had to have reached the melting point for the buildings to have collapsed, how they figure they could only have collapsed with the use of bombs (wasn't a jetliner a very large bomb?), how they figure there must've been bombs if the tower stricken on the corner collapsed first (which would collapse first: the one with a hole knocked in the side, or the one with it's corner structure blown out? Isn't the corner a major strong-point in a building? [cornerstone, anyone?]), how they figure the flash in front of the planes wasn't a big glare from the shining front of the airplane (glimmers off the windows), how they didn't think of the air pressure while the building was collapsing rather than explosions, how they figure the numerous explosions had to have been bombs rather than the fuel exploding other things inside of the building (elevators falling, gas manes blowing, etc.), and how they figure that the molten steel in the basements couldn't have been from the intense heat smoldering in the rubble...

I believe that the government knew about it and allowed it (government officials not flying that day, the camera on top of the tower, the allowing of the planes to go off course for 40 minutes before action was taken, etc.)...I don't think they had the capability to perform it. @CaldMagi, you can't say that a bunch of Arabs in a cave had more capability of performing the operation than the U.S. government, because it had nothing to do with bombs (as the evidence points). The U.S. government could pull off what happened, not what you are theorizing happened...

1.) I saw 1/4 of the front of the plane inside that building in the frame that showed the flash. Thats how I saw it.

2.) Its pretty much obvious that what they THOUGHT was a bomb could have just been an explosion by something else. Their is 1 in 1000 chance it couldeve been a bomb. They check for weapons before you enter a building especially if you look middle eastern because of the 1993 bombing in the WTC.

When the people that escaped the WTC were talked to on News stations, they said the lower half of the building was malfunctioning because of the plane hitting it. So it was not only the top floors that were messed up. Thats why it most likely couldent have been a bomb, and was something that malfunctioned on the lower floors. Do i have absolute truth that it wasent a bomb? No, but i did list the facts that make the odds of it being a bomb slim to none. And so what if a firefighter from the outside heard it? Do you think only a bomb is loud enough to be heard from outside that tower?

4.) I didnt say the WEIGHT of the plane had anything to do with the WAY it calapsed. I said the weight of the plane was one of the reasons why it DID calapse. And the hole wasent only on one side of the tower. It blew out holes on every side. You think a plane hitting a tower at 500 MPH would cause only one hole on one side of the tower?

And the hole doesnt even matter. This is a pic of the South tower:The floors above the hit from the plane tiped over to its left because those floors were detatched from the lower part of the building, BECAUSE OF THE 4 BIG HOLES, ONE ON EACH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. The floors below the hit from the plane went down straight because they were all attached to each other perfectly and they pancaked onto each other.

Now, the North tower went down straight like a planned demolition. since the plane hit the north tower near the last floor, their are no floors on top of that to calapse on its side. so those floors fell ontop of the floors below it causeing it to AGAIN pancake ontop of each other. Because all those floors didnt have any problems with its structure.

I don't know what to think. I can't see the U.S. government coming together and planning this whole thing just to find an excuse for a war or two. But I think these conspiracy theorists are just too eager to blame some discrepancies on the government.

Besides, watch the video. They mention I think 5 other example, without the Madrid fire included. Goes to show no one actually watched the video.

I watched the video and most of the stuff they said was all crap. When they talked about the plane that hit the grass in PA i have to admit i dont have any idea how i can go against that, but everything about the twin towers i can say is BS.

Lets see.. where should i start, their was so much useless crap in that movie i cant remember it all..

1.) They showed frames of the airplane hitting the 2nd tower. They said their was a flash before it hit the tower. It was to blurry to make anythin of it. But i did notice that 1/4 of the airplane was inside the building when their was a flash.

2.) They said that people reported hereing explosions in the building after the planes hit. Its a 110 story skyscraper.. every floor is connected to each other physically, electronically (wires going up and down the whole building) and elevators going up and down the whole building. Their could have been hundreds if not thousands of reasons why their was extra explosions. The witnesses said they HEARD an explosion, not actually see one.

3.) When the towers calapsed, the idiot that was narrating the video said their were explosions in the floors beneath the floors that were calapsing BEFORE it hit the floor that exploded. THAT WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION THAT WAS DUST BEING BLOWN OUT OF THE FRIGGIN WINDOWS FROM THE PRESSURE IN THE BUILDING. I guess its pretty easy to mistake it for an explosion if u have a mind of a mentally handicapped person.

4.) The guy was saying how people are stupid for thinking the buildings calapsed because of a fire. A fire.. Then he goes on talking about other buildings haveing fires. Did those other buildings get hit by an airplane? I dont think so..

They think the calapse was all planned out. That it looked like a planned out demolition.. NO.. Let me ask u guys this question.. How much does a Commercial airline plane weigh? hmm? They said each engine is 3 tons each alone. Can that kind of airplane be inside the WTC and still have enough support to be standing? Especially when it has a huge hole inside it. The huge hole lowers the chance of the the building standing, and the airplane adds a shit of a lot more weight.

And of course it looked like a planned out demolition.. Both buildings are just complete rectangles. If its pointed straight up like that its going to come down that way to. The floord pancaked onto each other. Now if it was the sears tower that calapsed, that would be a different story, the top of the sears tower would probably tip over and fall over because as the building goes higher it looses ground area.

They said they saw an explosion on the other side of where the second tower was hit and i guess they thought that was weird Ya ok.. The plane is going 500 MPH.. I was suprised that the plane didnt hit the tower and came out shootin through the opposite side completely.

(I'm not defending the consipracists, I'm correcting you)

1) The plane wasn't inside of the building when that explosion happened, that was quite clear...

2) Your answer to the numerous explosions didn't explain how there were numerous explosions. It just explained how they heard them. Even that explanation is faulty, because the firemen outside of the building heard them too.

3) Nothing wrong here...

4) How does the weight of the airplane have anything to do with the manner in which it collapsed? It doesn't matter how perfectly square they were, the probability that they collapsed perfectly downward (as though all the main supports in the base were blown away) is low. Being that tall, and perfectly square, they should've fallen over, especially since there was only a huge hole in one side of the building, increasing the chance that it would've fallen over. If you were to take a tall structure, and punch a hole in one side of it, you would figure it would collapse in the direction the hole is.

Anyway, the only things I find as relative evidence is the seizmographs and the damage to the lobby of the north tower, the Osama video, the video tapes of the Pentagon, the passport, and the government agents being instructed not to fly that day.

I want to know how they figured the steel had to have reached the melting point for the buildings to have collapsed, how they figure they could only have collapsed with the use of bombs (wasn't a jetliner a very large bomb?), how they figure there must've been bombs if the tower stricken on the corner collapsed first (which would collapse first: the one with a hole knocked in the side, or the one with it's corner structure blown out? Isn't the corner a major strong-point in a building? [cornerstone, anyone?]), how they figure the flash in front of the planes wasn't a big glare from the shining front of the airplane (glimmers off the windows), how they didn't think of the air pressure while the building was collapsing rather than explosions, how they figure the numerous explosions had to have been bombs rather than the fuel exploding other things inside of the building (elevators falling, gas manes blowing, etc.), and how they figure that the molten steel in the basements couldn't have been from the intense heat smoldering in the rubble...

I believe that the government knew about it and allowed it (government officials not flying that day, the camera on top of the tower, the allowing of the planes to go off course for 40 minutes before action was taken, etc.)...I don't think they had the capability to perform it. @CaldMagi, you can't say that a bunch of Arabs in a cave had more capability of performing the operation than the U.S. government, because it had nothing to do with bombs (as the evidence points). The U.S. government could pull off what happened, not what you are theorizing happened...

1.) I saw 1/4 of the front of the plane inside that building in the frame that showed the flash. Thats how I saw it.

2.) Its pretty much obvious that what they THOUGHT was a bomb could have just been an explosion by something else. Their is 1 in 1000 chance it couldeve been a bomb. They check for weapons before you enter a building especially if you look middle eastern because of the 1993 bombing in the WTC.

When the people that escaped the WTC were talked to on News stations, they said the lower half of the building was malfunctioning because of the plane hitting it. So it was not only the top floors that were messed up. Thats why it most likely couldent have been a bomb, and was something that malfunctioned on the lower floors. Do i have absolute truth that it wasent a bomb? No, but i did list the facts that make the odds of it being a bomb slim to none. And so what if a firefighter from the outside heard it? Do you think only a bomb is loud enough to be heard from outside that tower?

4.) I didnt say the WEIGHT of the plane had anything to do with the WAY it calapsed. I said the weight of the plane was one of the reasons why it DID calapse. And the hole wasent only on one side of the tower. It blew out holes on every side. You think a plane hitting a tower at 500 MPH would cause only one hole on one side of the tower?

And the hole doesnt even matter. This is a pic of the South tower:The floors above the hit from the plane tiped over to its left because those floors were detatched from the lower part of the building, BECAUSE OF THE 4 BIG HOLES, ONE ON EACH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. The floors below the hit from the plane went down straight because they were all attached to each other perfectly and they pancaked onto each other.

Now, the North tower went down straight like a planned demolition. since the plane hit the north tower near the last floor, their are no floors on top of that to calapse on its side. so those floors fell ontop of the floors below it causeing it to AGAIN pancake ontop of each other. Because all those floors didnt have any problems with its structure.

1) Ok, I thought it was clear (they even zoomed in used a shading circle to show you) that the plane had not entered the building yet when that flash occured.

2) I know what they THOUGHT was a bomb was probably other stuff (if you could be arsed to finish reading my post, you'd know that).

3) You seem to not be understanding that I am against the conspiracy theory (even though the official explanation [terrorists] is technically a conspiracy theory) and do not believe there were bombs involved (again, if you read the post you would know that ), but I am correcting you because you are not putting up correct/sufficient evidence to support that side of the argument. I didn't say you could only hear a bomb from outside of the building, I was referring to your explanation of people in the building being able to hear the explosions because everything in the buildings were physically connected by wires and shafts and such, and if that was the only reason they heard them, the firemen wouldn't've heard them...just because the people heard the explosions and not saw them doesn't mean they didn't happen, because people in and out of the buildings heard them, and they don't just up and lie...

4) I know it blew out all 4 sides, but that was mostly flaming jet fuel, and not actually 400mph worth of jet liner plowing through the steel supports. So, if the plane plowed into one side, and flaming jet fuel shot out the other sides, the other sides are as equally damaged as the side the plane hit? I don't think so...nonetheless, the tower you pictured fell over proving my point about it falling over because of the extensive damage to ONE side compared the LESSER DAMAGE TO THE OTHER SIDES. And I agree about the other tower, because the plane hit so near the top of the building it couldn't really tip over...

GTA_PlAyA_728

Dec 3 2005, 07:13 AM

Im not even going to bother with #1 anymore cuz i dont feel like downloading that video again just to see the same thing again. All i remember is that in the frame where the flash first came up on the south tower, i remember seeing part of the front of the plane gone. It was really blurry to even really tell.

If you think it wasent a bomb either then why are you whineing about me giving evidence about it?

3.) What are you talking about? I didnt say they lied about the explosions and i didnt say they heard them because of wireing and shafts. I said that since every floor is connected to each other in some way, it is possible to have the problem from the top floors hit by the plane to make problems on the lower floors. Which is why their couldeve been an explosion on the floors that didnt have physical damage. Some examples are the elevators, they couldeve fallen to the bottom floor and caused a huge noise sounding like an explosion, Or maybe some electronic equipment that malfunctioned caught fire and exploded. Or maybe since their were so many people freaking out and trying to escape the building. Maybe some problems with gas lines?

4.) I know that the side it first hit had the most damage. And i didnt notice that the left side was the side it was first hit on. So i agree with you on why it tipped that way. and it proves to the people who think it was planned out that it obviously wasent.

I dont think it even matters whether the US let it happen or not, all the shit on 9/11 and 1993 garage bombing happened because of saddam hussein. If it wasent for the gulf war none of this wouldeve happened.

Im not even going to bother with #1 anymore cuz i dont feel like downloading that video again just to see the same thing again. All i remember is that in the frame where the flash first came up on the south tower, i remember seeing part of the front of the plane gone. It was really blurry to even really tell.

If you think it wasent a bomb either then why are you whineing about me giving evidence about it?

3.) What are you talking about? I didnt say they lied about the explosions and i didnt say they heard them because of wireing and shafts. I said that since every floor is connected to each other in some way, it is possible to have the problem from the top floors hit by the plane to make problems on the lower floors. Which is why their couldeve been an explosion on the floors that didnt have physical damage. Some examples are the elevators, they couldeve fallen to the bottom floor and caused a huge noise sounding like an explosion, Or maybe some electronic equipment that malfunctioned caught fire and exploded. Or maybe since their were so many people freaking out and trying to escape the building. Maybe some problems with gas lines?

4.) I know that the side it first hit had the most damage. And i didnt notice that the left side was the side it was first hit on. So i agree with you on why it tipped that way. and it proves to the people who think it was planned out that it obviously wasent.

I dont think it even matters whether the US let it happen or not, all the shit on 9/11 and 1993 garage bombing happened because of saddam hussein. If it wasent for the gulf war none of this wouldeve happened.

I'm gonna give up on thise because you seem to have lost what you're talking about and are saying things that I've already stated.

Yes, you did say about wires and crap:

QUOTE

2.) They said that people reported hereing explosions in the building after the planes hit. Its a 110 story skyscraper.. every floor is connected to each other physically, electronically (wires going up and down the whole building) and elevators going up and down the whole building. Their could have been hundreds if not thousands of reasons why their was extra explosions. The witnesses said they HEARD an explosion, not actually see one.

QUOTE

I dont think it even matters whether the US let it happen or not, all the shit on 9/11 and 1993 garage bombing happened because of saddam hussein. If it wasent for the gulf war none of this wouldeve happened.

You've gotta be kidding me...Saddam had nothing to do with it. Al-Qaeda had everything to do with it. They did it because of the U.S.'s foreign policy in the Middle East and how it was fucking over all the poor people there and supporting their dictators. Saddam had nothing to do with it except he may have agreed with Al-Qaeda and might've helped with some funding or what-not, but the Gulf War was completely unrelated.

Lord Steve0

Dec 3 2005, 12:22 PM

I think the conspiracy theories are looking too hard to find what they want.

-A plane hit each tower, the fuel in each exploded, and then what was left caught fire and burned at about 700 degrees.

-Add to that the fact that a huge amount of the planes went shooting through the towers and out the other side (that's bound to cause some damage inside) and that tower two had the strongest part, the corner, blown out it's no wonder they collapsed. (they found one engine about 2 blocks away)

-Also add in the effect of tower one collapsing on the structure of tower two, that's over half a million tonnes of steel and concrete falling to earth, you telling me that won't shake things nearby? It would have been like an earthquake.

-Also add in that a lot of jet fuel went down lift shafts and ventilation shafts too, it's no wonder there were fire all over the place.

-The explosions below the impact area when it collapsed were probably pressure blowing windows and debris out

-The sounds of "bombs" were most likely just pillars and floors hitting each other. I dounbt very much you would hear bombs going off over the sound of the tower falling down.

-Once the tower started falling a bomb would likely have little effect on how it fell, it would be like trying to divert a lava flow with a hand grenade.

-Any bombs that were in the upper areas would get smashed to bits by the planes anyway, i doubt a bomb would have power greater than a plane exploding, they would likely only add a little bit of extra damage.

-The US government could never pull this off, look how the CIA, NSA, FBI can barely wotk together. How would they ever pull this off?

-They might let it happen, but again these organisations don't work together very well, it would be very hard to do it. How would you persuade people to just ignore a big attack like this? Would you ingore something like this if you worked for the CIA? Even if you were told to ignore it?

-Sadam had little to do with this, although he might have given money to the terrorist organisation i doubt he would plan this. There is no evidence that Sadam and Al Qaeda even liked each other, they were pretty much rivals or enemies.

-As far as i can see, the only suspect thing that happened on 9/11 is that the fourth plane crashed in a field. It hit no target and nobody knows why. Did it get shot down? Was it's target known? Did the government act and stop it reaching it's target? Did the passegers bring it down knowing what was going on elsewhere? Where the terrorists onboard not as well trained and crashed by accident?

Im not even going to bother with #1 anymore cuz i dont feel like downloading that video again just to see the same thing again. All i remember is that in the frame where the flash first came up on the south tower, i remember seeing part of the front of the plane gone. It was really blurry to even really tell.

If you think it wasent a bomb either then why are you whineing about me giving evidence about it?

3.) What are you talking about? I didnt say they lied about the explosions and i didnt say they heard them because of wireing and shafts. I said that since every floor is connected to each other in some way, it is possible to have the problem from the top floors hit by the plane to make problems on the lower floors. Which is why their couldeve been an explosion on the floors that didnt have physical damage. Some examples are the elevators, they couldeve fallen to the bottom floor and caused a huge noise sounding like an explosion, Or maybe some electronic equipment that malfunctioned caught fire and exploded. Or maybe since their were so many people freaking out and trying to escape the building. Maybe some problems with gas lines?

4.) I know that the side it first hit had the most damage. And i didnt notice that the left side was the side it was first hit on. So i agree with you on why it tipped that way. and it proves to the people who think it was planned out that it obviously wasent.

I dont think it even matters whether the US let it happen or not, all the shit on 9/11 and 1993 garage bombing happened because of saddam hussein. If it wasent for the gulf war none of this wouldeve happened.

I'm gonna give up on thise because you seem to have lost what you're talking about and are saying things that I've already stated.

Yes, you did say about wires and crap:

QUOTE

2.) They said that people reported hereing explosions in the building after the planes hit. Its a 110 story skyscraper.. every floor is connected to each other physically, electronically (wires going up and down the whole building) and elevators going up and down the whole building. Their could have been hundreds if not thousands of reasons why their was extra explosions. The witnesses said they HEARD an explosion, not actually see one.

QUOTE

I dont think it even matters whether the US let it happen or not, all the shit on 9/11 and 1993 garage bombing happened because of saddam hussein. If it wasent for the gulf war none of this wouldeve happened.

You've gotta be kidding me...Saddam had nothing to do with it. Al-Qaeda had everything to do with it. They did it because of the U.S.'s foreign policy in the Middle East and how it was fucking over all the poor people there and supporting their dictators. Saddam had nothing to do with it except he may have agreed with Al-Qaeda and might've helped with some funding or what-not, but the Gulf War was completely unrelated.

Yes, saddam was the one that started everything. When they invaded kuwait they were going to try to invade saudi arabia after. When the US troops got their, osama binladen went to the king of saudi arabia saying they shouldent let the US help out because he thought it wasent right to have infidels on their "holy land". The king told him to just let them do what they have to do and that got him pissed so he left and went to afghanistan and sudan trying to get people against the US. That was the REAL start of everything.

I think i would know what happened considering my family is assyrian catholic and my parents lived in Iraq

Caliguy

Dec 3 2005, 09:26 PM

I watched it, and I am baffled. The whole thing near the end where there are explosions going off while the tower is collapsing is mind boggling. But I'm still curious to how many calls in total there were made from the planes. And what about the people who died on the planes? I don't get how it could be a totally separate plane.

Mattay

Dec 3 2005, 09:37 PM

QUOTE(Caliguy @ Dec 3 2005, 07:54 PM) [snapback]1017304[/snapback]

I watched it, and I am baffled. The whole thing near the end where there are explosions going off while the tower is collapsing is mind boggling. But I'm still curious to how many calls in total there were made from the planes. And what about the people who died on the planes? I don't get how it could be a totally separate plane.

The hole in the Pentagon looked like it was hit by a thomahawk cruise missle...Not a Boeing 757, and that is the part that makes you wonder. I think the U.S. Government has been keeping something from its citizens. O_o

I watched it, and I am baffled. The whole thing near the end where there are explosions going off while the tower is collapsing is mind boggling. But I'm still curious to how many calls in total there were made from the planes. And what about the people who died on the planes? I don't get how it could be a totally separate plane.

The hole in the Pentagon looked like it was hit by a thomahawk cruise missle...Not a Boeing 757, and that is the part that makes you wonder. I think the U.S. Government has been keeping something from its citizens. O_o

...Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.

Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester

Dec 4 2005, 02:45 AM

Yeah - it's not as if someone could say "You know that looks a bit like it's been hit by a Boeng commercial airliner to me."

Muted Bass Fish

Dec 4 2005, 02:58 AM

after watching that im getting to think that the government is lying to us about stuff cause we saw the missiles in the tape and everthing else.

ride_bmx

Dec 4 2005, 08:35 AM

ok i might be wrong but i see that for a fire so large to take down a building that has many reinforceements in its structure, wouldnt it need huge amounts of oxygen?, how tall were these buildings?

This is an appromation: how tall is an average story?

about.....say....between 3 and 4metres? so 3m x 110 storys

so this is about 330m tall at the smallest if my guessing is correct....440m tall at the most

how much oxygen is at these hights?Is it enough for a massive fire to take down a well desgned building?

and as i have never seen this question asked, im asking it.

I mean Im not saying its not possible but is it?

CaldMagi

Dec 4 2005, 10:35 AM

Lol @ the Pentagon conspiracy. Even I believe an airplane hit the Pentagon. Kinda weird though, that in the world's most secured area, there is no footage of the crash whatsoever.

Lord Steve0

Dec 4 2005, 01:24 PM

The lack of footage from there is odd, but then again there must be hundreds of witnesses who saw it. Unless the whole of Washington closed its eyes at the time of the attack.

@ ride bmx: i think the difference in O2 levels at that height are tiny, not enough to alter the fires. I mean you didn't need breathing aperatus to go on the roof of the towers. I think there fires were fueld very well with jet fuel and office furniture. As well as anything else in there too. Plus i suspect the high winds at the top of the tower would fan the fire in each tower, helping it spread and burn.

Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester

Dec 4 2005, 02:56 PM

It's a good few thousand ft before there's a real difference in Oxygen concentration.

ride_bmx

Dec 5 2005, 06:49 AM

oh ok thanks for clearing that up

Mattay

Dec 5 2005, 07:22 PM

QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Dec 4 2005, 09:03 AM) [snapback]1018037[/snapback]

Lol @ the Pentagon conspiracy. Even I believe an airplane hit the Pentagon. Kinda weird though, that in the world's most secured area, there is no footage of the crash whatsoever.

And consider the fact that there was no trace of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon. No engines found, not even a trace of a plane's wings hitting the building. The hole looked like that of maybe a tomohawk missile I guess. O_o

I fucking hate being lied to...

CaldMagi

Dec 5 2005, 07:58 PM

What does a tomahawk missile hole look like then? lol.

How can one tell this was a tomahawk missile hole?

Sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Whether it was a commercial airplane, or another type of smaller plane, I don't think it was a missile.

I just can't bring myself to believe the government could have pulled this kind of thing off without a hitch...

That's exactly what pisses me off so damn much...Why did they even do this? What the hell were they trying to prove?

Lord Steve0

Dec 6 2005, 04:34 PM

That's the one area the conspiracies fall down at, every one of them.

There is no reason to do this, none what so ever. If they wanted a war there were easier ways, and a million places on earth that you could justify invading for humanitarian reasons (Sudan, Congo, N.Korea), drugs reasons (Columbia) or WMD reasons (N.Korea, Iran).Even if they were part of some "Grand Plan" by the evil Illuminati Overlords Of Doom, trying to bring all humanity into a living Hell for their own pleasure, its a heck of a funny way to do it.If somebody can give me a serious decent reason why all this would be done by any government on its own people then i'm willing to listen.Until then i see most of this as ravings of a few paranoid crazy people who just dislike the government.

I will however admit there are holes in the current story, things that need to be sorted out. Where's the videos of the Pentagon, why'd the 4th plane crash etc?

CaldMagi

Dec 6 2005, 05:17 PM

"In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us." - Thich Nhat Hanh

Lord Steve0

Dec 6 2005, 06:11 PM

To be honest if a government really wanted the people to rally behind it and like it then it could just make it better for them to live in that country. I don't see the US ever doing much to improve the living standards of its people, so god knows why they would do this. It certainly hasn't rallied people round the government, not when you put it alongside all the other lies and cock-ups they have made in recent years.

Un-Amurikan Bastage

Dec 6 2005, 10:29 PM

QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Dec 6 2005, 11:45 AM) [snapback]1020625[/snapback]

"In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us." - Thich Nhat Hanh

The U.S. government had no enemies at the time?! That is implying the government did it to create an enemy, but there were plenty of American enemies, I must say...

Either way - who cares? The towers fell, 2000 people died. If there was a controlled explosion, the towers fell, 2000 people died. If it was a plane hitting the towers fell, 2000 people died. If someone threw a can of coke at it then the building fell, and 2000 died. What's the difference?

Yeah exactly my thoughts too, im actually locked in a debate about this very topic on another forum I frequent and said this very same thing. Then they came at me saying "who cares? 3,000 people died!!", but I dont really think they understood what I was saying, but like Mello said above, the towers fell, it doesnt matter how it happened, its in the past, no matter what really might have happened or not, we cant take it back, there is no point dwelling on it really.

I havent watched that video, but have read about the conspiracy theories, I personally think the whole thing is a joke, all these "smart arses" seem to have the facts about the building collapsing, but can never seem to think of a reasonanble excuse as to why the American government would want to blow up 4 of its planes, destroy 3 of its buildings and kill 3,000 of its citizens, and any "motives" I have heard from the conspiracy theorists, are very poor, such as "the U.S wanted to control oil prices" and "they wanted to spread democracy through out the middle east", yeah so they went through all of that carnage and shit, just to control the oil prices? Give me a break, I know the government are pricks, but they're still humans, they still have human compassion.

But I guess with every event like this, there are always gonna be conspiracy theories, and while there are alot of true facts to the conspiracy against 9/11, there are/were also more solid facts pointing to Tupac Shakur still being alive than dead, but the fact is, he is dead, just because there are more facts that point towards one thing, doesnt always mean that it points you down the right path.

There is such thing as coincidence you know, no matter how big it might be, again Tupacs "still alive" conspiracy is another good example of this.

EDIT:

Also on the 9/11 "deliberate planted explosives" issue, those who believe this always say how no building in history with steel interior beams has collapsed due to a fire, well what they're forgetting is that probally none of those buildings had a 100+ tonne plane flown into them before hand.

To be honest if a government really wanted the people to rally behind it and like it then it could just make it better for them to live in that country. I don't see the US ever doing much to improve the living standards of its people, so god knows why they would do this. It certainly hasn't rallied people round the government, not when you put it alongside all the other lies and cock-ups they have made in recent years.

It's a lot easier to make the rest of the world look bad than make your country look good.

Lord Steve0

Dec 7 2005, 10:42 AM

Maybe true, but i doubt even Bush and his government are stupid enough to try this.The guy can't string a sentence together or even open a door without making an arse of things. I doubt he had much to do with it, even if the government did this.I doubt anyone in the US would do this, it's not the sort of country where this sort of thing goes on. From my experience, a lot of US people are very patriotic and i'd imagine the idea of them needing to do this to themselves just to have a war would not go down too well.

Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester

Dec 7 2005, 11:08 AM

I know, I'm just trying to be even-handed.

Heard the conspiracy theory that they allowed Pearl Harbour to happen so that they could enter the 'war? Even that's more realistic than this (because of the lack of Japanese motive). But that's not saying much.

And yeah, the door opening. Did you see that on Have I Got News For You?

Lord Steve0

Dec 7 2005, 11:48 AM

No i missed it but saw it online. What a twat! And to think he is "in charge" of the most powerful country in the world.

Not heard about the Pearl Harbour conspiracy though, care to enlighten us?

Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester

Dec 7 2005, 11:57 AM

I'll google it to get some "sources" in a minute. Basically American high-command was supposedly desperate to come to the Ally's aid, so they faked a bombing on Pearl Harbour as justification to the American people.

I think to an extent it's true; in that they played the Pearl Harbour card as justification, but I very much doubt it was caused by America v_v

Interesting read.But i get the feeling that a lot of people would find it a big insult to claim the US caused the attack there. A lot of the evidence again relies on you being a paranoid loony who thinks there is some New World Order out to get us.Some of the claims are ridiculous, they really are.They even blame the masons for it, claiming they are a satan worshiping cult.I'm not a mason, but even i know that it's unlikely they are satan worshipers.Claiming the masons are satanists is typical of conspiracy theorists, they think they know there is some big plan and all these "orders" and "cults" are in it together. Maybe if they read a bit of history they'd find that a lot of what the claim is nonsense.I can't help feeling that most conspiracy theories suffer similar problems.

They all try to piece together bit of info that point to some sinister plan, but often ignore evidence that proves otherwise. And a lot of it relies on the reader actually being affraid of the government anyway.

I watched it, and I am baffled. The whole thing near the end where there are explosions going off while the tower is collapsing is mind boggling. But I'm still curious to how many calls in total there were made from the planes. And what about the people who died on the planes? I don't get how it could be a totally separate plane.

When buildings collapse, wires, ect, break. When wires break, (especially high voltage lines) (which would be going through the building) ARC, and in some cases can be explosive in nature, if they are grounded sufficiently.

QUOTE(Mattay @ Dec 3 2005, 06:15 PM) [snapback]1017319[/snapback]

The hole in the Pentagon looked like it was hit by a thomahawk cruise missle...Not a Boeing 757, and that is the part that makes you wonder. I think the U.S. Government has been keeping something from its citizens. O_o

How do you know what a thomahawk cruise missile looks like? How do you know what a boeing 757 looks like? Or did you just trust that bias video?

QUOTE(ride_bmx @ Dec 4 2005, 05:13 AM) [snapback]1017976[/snapback]

ok i might be wrong but i see that for a fire so large to take down a building that has many reinforceements in its structure, wouldnt it need huge amounts of oxygen?, how tall were these buildings?

This is an appromation: how tall is an average story?

about.....say....between 3 and 4metres? so 3m x 110 storys

so this is about 330m tall at the smallest if my guessing is correct....440m tall at the most

how much oxygen is at these hights?Is it enough for a massive fire to take down a well desgned building?

and as i have never seen this question asked, im asking it.

I mean Im not saying its not possible but is it?

Theres no difference in the ammount of atmosphere. Ever been to the mountains... they are usually 4000 feet above sea level, you dont notice a difference in the ammount of oxigen there do you? The twin towers were less than 2000 feet tall.

QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Dec 4 2005, 07:13 AM) [snapback]1018037[/snapback]

Lol @ the Pentagon conspiracy. Even I believe an airplane hit the Pentagon. Kinda weird though, that in the world's most secured area, there is no footage of the crash whatsoever.